The state of the nation's leaders

The British Army was once famously described as 'lions led by donkeys'. And although the business world is vastly different to that of the Somme and Pachendale, the principle remains the same - without good leadership even the most dedicated of organisations will flounder.

In recent years great changes have taken place to the traditionally hierarchical nature of British firms. The result has been a more egalitarian and results-driven environment. But has this put the UK in a better position? And are the managers better skilled than their predecessors? Liz Amos, former advisor to the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (CEML) takes a look at the state of UK management.

Why has management and leadership in the UK reached such a parlous state? And why has that situation been allowed to happen?

To describe management and leadership in the UK as 'in a parlous state' is a gross exaggeration. What we know is that the best of UK management ranks with the best in the world, but there is a long tail of under-performance which impacts on our economic performance. In fact, there has been a steady increase in the award of management qualifications over the last decade - a 20 per cent increase in the award of first degrees in business and management studies in the last five years alone.

But the fact is, there is increasing demand for more and better management and particularly leadership skills - not just for those classified as managers but for a broad cross-section of people in the workforce. The relentless pace of change and the pressure to devolve responsibility further down the hierarchy, as two examples, mean there is an increasing requirement for staff at all levels to have some management, but especially leadership skills.

It is these changing demands, coupled with the fact that until recently management qualifications have been light on leadership development, and in too many organisations - particularly those employing fewer than 50 - low priority is given to management, let alone leadership development, which has opened up a significant gap in the management and leadership capability that the UK needs to compete and to deliver efficient public services.

If UK management and leadership capability is not being measured, how do we know we are lagging behind?

The Council has spent two years gathering a wide variety of statistical and case study evidence to establish that the UK's management and leadership capability does not match its aspirations to be globally competitive and to improve the delivery of public and voluntary services. Our argument is that given the importance of management and leadership to our future performance, there needs to be a national resource to gather relevant data on an annual basis to enable progress to be plotted and international comparisons to be made.

How likely is it that the Government will set up a new strategic body for management and leadership? How would/should it be structured?

This is a recommendation that the Council did not make lightly, having based its strategy on catalysing existing organisations to take action. However, given the fragmentation of responsibility for improving the UK's management and leadership capability among so many stakeholders; given also their narrow focus, we concluded that we had no alternative but to recommend a body to champion the cause and to continue to act as a catalyst for change.

It is not for me to answer for the Government, but I would urge them strongly to make haste to establish the strategic body, as we propose. Without it, I fear, we shall lose momentum.

As for its structure, we believe it needs to be a body with clout, which can report to the Government at the highest level, that it should be employer-led, but in touch with suppliers, regulators and funders - all those who have a part to play in delivering our strategy.

It should be a strategic, not an operational body and it should be in touch with the SSDA and the newly forming Sector Skills Councils, but not be one of them.

If the UK is so far behind in terms of its leadership and management development, faced with such a huge task, how realistic is it that this situation will be reversed by 2010 as predicted in the CEML findings? Are there any intermediate goals?

Given the stage that the UK is at and taking the comprehensive strategy that we have proposed that spans pre-employment through to retirement, and also addresses practical steps to be taken by individuals and organisations on both the demand and the supply side, yes, it is possible.

Even more so, as we already see action being taken. The Leadership Development Best Practice Guide, which we developed, is being followed in many organisations and will reach an even wider audience when the Investor in People's new Leadership module - which we recommended - comes into being later in the year.

Leadership Best Practice is also being taken up and disseminated by the CBI's Fit for the Future Campaign. There are other examples in the public and private sectors where aspects of the Council's strategy are being addressed - from museum directors to HE staff, from housing professionals to lawyers.

There is the potential for a snowball effect here, if these activities are co-ordinated. Intermediate goals would include the Government making a commitment to put the necessary investment, for example, into developing the online signposting system for management and leadership learning opportunities linked to outcomes, as we have proposed; or to adopt the strategy that we have recommended for small firms which includes setting up a substantial challenge fund for informal development opportunities.

Small firms represent 1.1 million organisations and account for 30 per cent of UK private turnover, so that would be an important intermediate target.

What did you feel was the most astonishing finding of the CEML study?

The gap between what individuals and organisations need in terms of management and leadership abilities to meet today's and tomorrow's challenges, and what is provided by suppliers. Worse still was the acceptance by employers and individuals that management qualifications do not necessarily teach you how to manage, let alone lead, but about management and leadership. That puts the onus on both sides to collaborate better, to be more flexible, and to recognise that management and leadership learning is a life-long activity, needing a variety of approaches - both formal and informal, leading to qualifications and not.

What can be done to combat the male, white management syndrome? Should the equal opportunity organisations - the CRE and EOC - have a part to play?

What I think we found disappointing was that despite all the initiatives that have been taken, women and ethnic minorities are still so poorly represented in the upper echelons of the management cadre.

Our view is that the lack of diversity in the senior management talent pool is a source of competitive disadvantage and yes, it does need continuing effort by the CRE and the EOC. But at heart, it needs action by organisations. We have said that promoting and managing diversity is part of being a good leader. We have recommended that as part of the evaluation of management and leadership programmes that all best practice organisations should be undertaking, they review the impact their programmes are having on diversity within their organisation.

The work that we did to develop the Leadership Best Practice Guide highlighted the importance of developing innovative ways of building a diverse management group that will be needed for the global organisation of the future.

We also picked up evidence that aspects of the education system had a detrimental effect of the diversity agenda. Some research revealed that women see MBAs as developed for men by men. We still have a lot to do if we are to broaden the talent pipeline for the managers and leaders of the future.

The report mentions studying best practice and taking on board appropriate lessons: what particular sectors and/or companies are exemplars of what should be achieved?

The work we did to develop the Leadership Best Practice Guide was drawn from good practice of a number of major, well-known organisations. But it is an aspirational tool - none of those who participated in the work were exemplars of it all. Nor can best practice be preserved in aspic - the goalposts are moving all the time. That is why we have recommended that Leadership Best Practice networks be established by organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Management, the Institute of Leadership and Management and the Work Foundation's Campaign for Leadership, for example, so that learning can be shared and developed.

The Best Practice Guide needs to be constantly improved, picking up new challenges, and the findings widely disseminated.

How do you envisage the structure of the National Forum?

The idea behind the National Forum was simply to improve dialogue between providers and their potential customers. Much of our research showed that there was a limited and fragmented dialogue taking place, which meant that the customer focus of suppliers at HE and FE levels was often found to be wanting.

Given the gap, which we have identified between what the customer needs and what is available, it is important to take steps to bridge this gap.

A National Forum might have a part to play. However, it needs to be within the context of the new Strategic Body that we have recommended, and it needs to have clear objectives. It should also have a link to the Management Research Forum that the ESRC is establishing as part of its new Management Research Initiative. This envisages promoting dialogue between employers and management researchers, to improve the quality and relevance of management research, ours between employers and management providers to improve the quality and relevance of management education and training.

www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org